BLP news

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:59 pm

icarus, I've asked you twice before, I'm asking you again, please do not respond to any of my posts.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:28 pm

You have assumed I was responding to you, I wasn't .... but I just have now, oops. But how else was I able to not respond to you that I wasn't responding to you? Enviable position to put yourself in, to insist someone doesn't respond to you and then accuse them of responding to you.

Who can argue with philosopistry of such calibre?

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:01 am

Can I ask how you know better that these scientists without having done the experiment yourself? Are you a chemist?

You are claiming that the researchers cannot find a cause to the excess heat. Then, you argue, that because they cannot find the cause of the heat, then it must be from hydrinos. This is a classic argument from ignorance. Why are you automatically ruling out every reasonable explanation?

Enginerd · Post by **Enginerd** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:27 am

kcdodd wrote:
Can I ask how you know better that these scientists without having done the experiment yourself? Are you a chemist?
You are claiming that the researchers cannot find a cause to the excess heat. Then, you argue, that because they cannot find the cause of the heat, then it must be from hydrinos. This is a classic argument from ignorance. Why are you automatically ruling out every reasonable explanation?

I saw some footprints in my garage. I can't find any reason for them to be there. It is therefore certain that an invisible pink unicorn caused them.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:06 am

icarus wrote:
Was this posted simply to PROVE you have nothing positive to add?
Actually it proved my point. You cannot possibly see the hypocrisy of your position supporting EMC2, whilst asking for someone to do experiments for you and expecting to get data back.

Actually it proved that you don't seem to have the whit to distinguish between 1) a commercial, proprietary effort that has as a main goal the development of a commercial product and 2) a cooperative amateur effort that has as the main goal to develop the data you say you so dearly want but are making yourself an a$$hole nattering about and blocking any cooperative action. Clear now lack-whit, umm I mean lack-wing?

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:17 am

The word just beyond your grasp is 'wit' not 'whit'. As in 'witless people lack vocabularies'. On the other hand, I could not give one whit, or, you lack a whit of evidence.

I'll take your resort to abusive name calling as an admission that you have lost the argument.

a$$hole

You're all class when your twisted logic wraps you into defending the indefensible. When in a hole, stop digging.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:54 am

kcdodd wrote:
Can I ask how you know better that these scientists without having done the experiment yourself? Are you a chemist?
You are claiming that the researchers cannot find a cause to the excess heat. Then, you argue, that because they cannot find the cause of the heat, then it must be from hydrinos. This is a classic argument from ignorance. Why are you automatically ruling out every reasonable explanation?

No, I'm not saying that and if you read above you'll see I'm not saying that.

However, try to understand how science works. It doesn't EVER prove anything. All it ever does is rule out the alternatives.

Warrant for belief is on the side of the Rowan researchers.

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:02 am

The Rowan research has not shown the existence of a hydrino. They even admit this in the conclusion. It in no way warrants belief in such a thing. The only thing it warrants is a belief that there is a reaction THEY have not identified. As far as I saw, they never identified a hydrino reaction. You cannot use hydrinos as an explanation until you show they exist. I stand by my earlier assessment of your interpretation.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:06 am

Yes well, I've never argued for the existence of hydrinos.

I'm saying that there is unexplained science here to be explored. I don't have a stake in the BLP game.

First things first: can we agree that known chemistry cannot explain all the energy coming out of the BLP reactors, or are we going to continue the foolishness?

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:08 am

what is your definition of known chemistry?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:21 am

I was just looking to see what you may or may not have said about hydrinos. Difficult to say as you've said so little. But I like the comment;

GIThruster wrote:It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that the work at Rowan is somehow flawed

Ah, that old chestnut! The "Rowan University infallibility" doctrine!!

So what has Rowan actually said? You have said I should read reports, but can't find anything directly from them. Maybe what they have said is infallible - there are ways to write infallibly....generally by claiming nothing specific....

I've also asked you to identify these patents. You say there are 58 but have come up with none. Just gimme some patent numbers to chew on....

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:26 am

I note on wikipedia for Rowan that at the top of the list for notable Alumni comes "Jessica Boyington, Miss New Jersey USA 2006". (Not that this hints at all about issues of academic credibility. I am sure Ms Boyinton's qualifications have been well earned.)

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:40 pm

icarus wrote:The word just beyond your grasp is 'wit' not 'whit'. As in 'witless people lack vocabularies'. On the other hand, I could not give one whit, or, you lack a whit of evidence.
I'll take your resort to abusive name calling as an admission that you have lost the argument.
a$$hole
You're all class when your twisted logic wraps you into defending the indefensible. When in a hole, stop digging.

Well done. You found a typo.
an whether I've lost the "argument" remains to be seen, but if no-one wants to cooperate due to your nattering, then everyone, not only I, has "lost" this argument.

What I really don't understand is why you would want to "win" that argument. Seems like shootng yourself in the foot to me.

PS: what is this "indefensible" position you mention?

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:47 pm

how might one detect/measure a 'hydrino' anyway, presupposing such 'exist'. it surprises me that if they have been there all along, why we have never before detected anomalies such as BLP appear to be showing in other fields of chemistry? their experimental setup doesnt look terribly complicated.

(just a thought - i suspect 'hydrino' gas mixture might lase at a different frequency to normal H. maybe also bonding strength in compound might differ. any ideas?).

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:00 pm

Calorimetry is always very complicated. Chemical analysis like this is complicated.

Chris, I dunno what to make of your really way dopey posts. If you're not interested in the truth and want to talk about beauty queens at Rowan, please spare us all your blather. No, I'm not going to search out all the patents for you, when you prove you've yet to avail yourself to the data on record that actually PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE. There's data to be concerned with and you're posting about beauty queens. What a waste of time you are.